J. S84031/18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
A.M., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
: No. 2644 EDA 2018
E.P. :
Appeal from the Order Entered August 8, 2018,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court Division at No. 0C1508606
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 16, 2019
A.M. (“Mother”) appeals pro se from the August 8, 2018 order entered
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County that awarded primary
physical custody of A.J.P. (“Child”) to E.P. (“Father”) during the school year;
shared physical custody of the Child during the summer; and shared legal
custody of the Child. We dismiss this appeal.
The trial court set forth the following procedural history:
On January 25, 2017 Father filed two petitions; one
petition for contempt stating that Mother was
keeping Child from him, and one petition to modify
custody requesting primary physical custody of Child.
On March 6, 2017 Father filed a petition for
expedited relief stating again that Mother was in
contempt of the current custody order and
withholding Child from Father. The expedited petition
was granted on June 16, 2017. Father’s custodial
time was to resume at 6:00 pm that same day and
Mother was informed she must comply with the
J. S84031/18
custody schedule. Father’s petition for contempt was
heard September 26, 2017, and Mother was found in
contempt for her willful failure to comply with the
custody order in place at that time. No sanctions
were imposed, a temporary order was entered by
agreement of the parties, and Father’s petition to
modify custody was scheduled for a hearing on
June 8, 2018. A hearing on Father’s petition to
modify custody, including a sealed in camera
interview with Child was heard on June 8, 2018. The
decision was held in abeyance and a final order was
entered August 8, 2018. Mother filed a motion for
reconsideration on August 20, 2018, which was
denied without a hearing. . . .
Id. at 1-2.
The record reflects that Mother filed a timely notice of appeal, together
with a statement of errors complained of on appeal, in accordance with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). The trial court thereafter filed its
Rule 1925(a)(2)(ii) opinion.
A review of Mother’s brief demonstrates that she has failed to comply
with Pa.R.A.P 2111. In her brief, Mother fails to include a statement of
jurisdiction, the order in question, a statement of both the scope of review
and the standard of review, a statement of questions involved, a statement
of the case, a summary of the argument, a short conclusion stating the
precise relief sought, and a copy of the trial court’s opinion.
Mother’s brief is a narrative that sets forth her version of the facts
relevant to this custody dispute, as well as the reasons why she believes
that she should be awarded primary physical custody, but it fails to set forth
any legal argument with citation to legal authority to demonstrate an abuse
-2-
J. S84031/18
of discretion below. As this court has stated, where, as here, “a court has to
guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that is not enough for
meaningful review.” Jones v. Jones, 878 A.2d 86, 89 (Pa.Super. 2005)
(citation omitted).
Although we are mindful that Mother is proceeding pro se, her choice
to do so does not relieve her of her responsibility to properly raise and
develop appealable claims. See Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159,
1160 (Pa.Super. 1996). Moreover, this court will not act as Mother’s
counsel. See id. Accordingly, because the substantial defects in Mother’s
brief preclude us from conducting any meaningful judicial review, we are
constrained to dismiss this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. Rule 2101; see also
Smathers, 670 A.2d at 1160-1161.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/16/19
-3-